The Star Citizen Thread v5

[thorn-]

He didn't really say anything of the kind, now did he? He said that you really need a bare minimum of game mechanics — that oft-mentioned vertical slice — before you can really talk about it being an alpha.

I made a list of game mechanics, some of which you struck (for reasons not obvious to me). All are being tested, to determine how they should behave in the final game. You seem to have a very odd, specific definition of "Alpha"... and if the game isn't matching that arbitrary, personal description - then it's not Alpha.

What you have there are a bunch of disjointed game functions that serve no purpose

No purpose, except for testing. Which is the purpose of Alpha.

Oh, and a couple of those aren't even game mechanics.

Playable ships and weapons aren't game mechanics? I guess that means Elite isn't even a game either? As that's a lot of what you do... fly ships and shoot things.

 

[Cmdr-Wotherspoon]

You really expect that NONE of that is going to be in the final game?

Hi Thorn, and thanks for taking the time to reply. We clearly have different viewpoints. Not many of the items in your list look like games (or game-loops) to me. They may be building blocks of something that could be assembled into a game, but I don't feel that (for example) "ship damage and repair" is something you can *do*. But I accept you have a different opinion, and it may be a semantic confusion.

I'm fascinated by the psychology of Star Citizen backers (I'm talking about the vocal backers on the official SC forum in particular). There seems to be a general lack of intellectual vigour, and a willingness to be credulous that I find faintly disturbing. If I had many hundreds of dollars invested in the game I'd be calling RSI/CIG to account. I would be skeptical. I would want to see evidence.

The vocal part of the backer community seems almost completely supportive of CIG, despite the developer's (to me) very obvious lack of direction. It may be the effect of wishful thinking, or a refusal to accept reality, but you don't change things by burying your head in the sand. Star Citizen could still be a competent game, but I don't think it's heading that way at the moment.

But I hope I'm wrong and that you're right.

 

[Tippis]

I made a list of game mechanics, some of which you struck (for reasons not obvious to me).

I struck them because, as I wrote, they're not game mechanics.

All are being tested, to determine how they should behave in the final game.

So what? You still address a strawman argument because he did not suggest that any of that would not be in the final game.

No purpose, except for testing.

So, not really an alpha then but more of a tech demo — no dynamics, no game loop, nothing coherent, in short nothing that one would really expect from the alpha testing phase.

Playable ships and weapons aren't game mechanics?

No. They're implementations of space combat components — the actual mechanic these components contribute to is what's next in your list: ship damage (and of ship flight, but you didn't list that).

 

[frostypaw]

I made a list of game mechanics, some of which you struck (for reasons not obvious to me). All are being tested, to determine how they should behave in the final game. You seem to have a very odd, specific definition of "Alpha"... and if the game isn't matching that arbitrary, personal description - then it's not Alpha.

Actually the definition of an alpha is pretty well agreed by EVERYBODY apart from SC backers.

To the rest of the world it means most game loops and functionality should be in place for testing, albeit without the polish and finesse that would be expected of Beta which in an ideal world would be near-release worthy.

The real question is what is your imagined definition of "Alpha"?

 

[McGlashan]

The funny thing is, by asserting that it's "alpha" you're actually arguing that development is at a more advanced stage than the people who understand that it technically doesn't qualify as an alpha yet. Which means you have more explaining to do when it comes to all the missing features and mechanics. It's the people trying to defend the game who should be claiming it's pre-alpha, not the sceptics.

 

[Viajero]

... You seem to have a very odd, specific definition of "Alpha"... and if the game isn't matching that arbitrary, personal description - then it's not Alpha.

Actually his definition seems to be very similar to Chris Roberts':

Min 14:50
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=_EVigbqjdII

Chris Roberts definition of Alpha seems very clear, ie functionality and feature complete. With beta only left to fix bugs and add content.

According to Chris Roberts own definition what CIG has put out there so far could not be considered an alpha, far from it. The decision to reverse his own definition and call this Alpha was probably purely a commercial one presumably to generate the ilusion of progress and support further pledges.

 

[frostypaw]

video no workee

 

[Viajero]

Copying YouTube links in mobile is a joy. Try now?

 

[frostypaw]

Copying YouTube links in mobile is a joy. Try now?

that's fixed it

now we can just wait to see how thorn-/orlando/whoever spin CR's own words. i suspect it'll be ignored and all will stay quiet until it can be forgotten about

 

[Ian Skippy]

Actually the definition of an alpha is pretty well agreed by EVERYBODY apart from SC backers.

To the rest of the world it means most game loops and functionality should be in place for testing, albeit without the polish and finesse that would be expected of Beta which in an ideal world would be near-release worthy.

The real question is what is your imagined definition of "Alpha"?

Yeah, well, to SC backers the rest of the world is very odd. Everyone, including CR, agrees with that definition of Alpha. Except SC fans, because its inconvenient to use words properly. Because it would mean SC isn't even remotely close to Alpha, and wont likely wont get anywhere close to Alpha before 2019 (as it would require all the 4.x updates). That means if all goes well, which it never does over there, beta starts somewhere 2020 at best, which would mean that any release before 2022 either wont happen, or will be of horrible quality. And if it does release in 2022/2023, it'll be running on a decade-old engine, without VR support that will be mainstream by then. SC will be a relic of the past years before it is released.

In light of that simple truth, its just easier to re-define words to keep the fantasy going just that little bit extra. Until the inevitable crash.

 

[Adept]

I kind of disagree a little. In big, complex games it's perfectly valid to talk of an alpha test for a partial feature set.

Elite's Alpha 1.0 ... 3.0 are good examples. I don't think FD were misusing the term at all, yet they were clearly far from feature complete for the full game. What was feature complete was the space flight & combat (without FSD or multiple systems).

 

[tooterfish]

The terms alpha and beta have always been pretty arbitrary, I don't care what wikipedia tells you.

When using iterative and incremental development methods (and who isn't nowadays?), the oft cited technical definitions become essentially bloody meaningless. They're just marketing terms as much as anything now.

 

[AJW]

The terms alpha and beta have always been pretty arbitrary, I don't care what wikipedia tells you.

When using iterative and incremental development methods (and who isn't nowadays?), the oft cited technical definitions become essentially bloody meaningless. They're just marketing terms as much as anything now.

Yup. Which is why the 'it's an alpha' justification for missing core features doesn't really amount to much. Particularly when it is only a few months since CIG were trying to refuse refunds on the basis that the game was already substantially complete. Regardless of how it is labelled, SC as deployed to backers is in a very early stage of development, making it obvious that they are going to need a lot more time (and by the looks of it, money) to release anything but the most 'minimalist' MVP. Though this doesn't seem to deter them from making prominent 'play now' claims on their website. 'Play', not act as unpaid alpha/beta/whatever tester for something undefined to be delivered at an indeterminate date.

 

[AlPilg]

Yup. Which is why the 'it's an alpha' justification for missing core features doesn't really amount to much. Particularly when it is only a few months since CIG were trying to refuse refunds on the basis that the game was already substantially complete. Regardless of how it is labelled, SC as deployed to backers is in a very early stage of development, making it obvious that they are going to need a lot more time (and by the looks of it, money) to release anything but the most 'minimalist' MVP. Though this doesn't seem to deter them from making prominent 'play now' claims on their website. 'Play', not act as unpaid alpha/beta/whatever tester for something undefined to be delivered at an indeterminate date.

Spot on, have a rep. dinket.

 

[Stigbob]

Yup. Which is why the 'it's an alpha' justification for missing core features doesn't really amount to much. Particularly when it is only a few months since CIG were trying to refuse refunds on the basis that the game was already substantially complete. Regardless of how it is labelled, SC as deployed to backers is in a very early stage of development, making it obvious that they are going to need a lot more time (and by the looks of it, money) to release anything but the most 'minimalist' MVP. Though this doesn't seem to deter them from making prominent 'play now' claims on their website. 'Play', not act as unpaid alpha/beta/whatever tester for something undefined to be delivered at an indeterminate date.

I think the "it's an alpha" claim is actually just a variation of the tried and tested "you just don't understand game development" line.

When faced with genuine criticism or concern with no rejoinder other than theory-crafting, abuse or pure made up on the spot lies (all of which just attract ridicule here) it's an easy no facts required way to try and discredit the person asking the question rather than face the question itself.

It's not an alpha it's deflection.

 

[SkUnimatrix]

The terms alpha and beta have always been pretty arbitrary, I don't care what wikipedia tells you.

When using iterative and incremental development methods (and who isn't nowadays?), the oft cited technical definitions become essentially bloody meaningless. They're just marketing terms as much as anything now.

This is what I used to tell people. Having run a software company greek letters in software development is whatever legal will let marketing/sales get away with. At my company it went like this:

Sales Guy: "We have a big trade show coming up next month. We need a new 'Beta' product to show them and get them interested in sales..." (mind you it was avg 95 days from point of first contact until sales contract inked for our business)

Engineering: "We don't have a 'beta' product. Current development build (insert long laundry list of missing/broken stuff)...we might have an 'Alpha'"

Sales Guy: "If I show them something called Alpha they won't be interested in the product until next year. That's what 'Alpha' means to our customers, it might be ready next year. Beta means it will be ready this year."

Engineering: "That's not what those words..."

Sales Guy: "Business people make the purchasing decisions not geeks. They don't give a damn what you think they mean I only give a damn what they think it means. And Alpha to them means they'll take a look again next year or will go with a competing product."

Me: "Sales guy has a point".

Legal: "Alpha/Beta could have meaning that would imply a state of readiness and some customers might find misleading if we end up with a delay"

Me: "Good point Ms. Lawyer lady...hmmm. What if we called it something else. Like version X 'preview'?"

Sales Guy: "Preview...I like it. I can sell that to people and whet their appitites for the final version."

Engineering: "I guess. I mean it still won't have (laundry list)."

Sales Guy: "So long as you have one or two new features that's fine. We'll only show it on stage or in a presentation. Let others play with the existing product on the floor".

Me: "All right, then have Version X preview release ready next month engineering."

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's not an alpha it's deflection.

You just don't understand alpha deflection development!

And no - I don't mean He2+ as Genuine Roberts hasn't invented that yet either.

 

[Tippis]

The terms alpha and beta have always been pretty arbitrary, I don't care what wikipedia tells you.

When using iterative and incremental development methods (and who isn't nowadays?), the oft cited technical definitions become essentially bloody meaningless. They're just marketing terms as much as anything now.

As true as that may be, there's still a layering of functionality that has to take place to reach the end state of actually being a game. Using ye olde MDA distinction, you need mechanics in place to create dynamics, and dynamics in place to start building aesthetics. The terms as often used, even by CIG themselves, usually indicate that shift in layering and especially — which is the key point here — when it comes to describing what is actually being tested, and by whom.

The mechanics are tested in situ at the coder's desk, because you really need a debugger and other tools to expose the internal messaging to see if the code effect the right ruleset — later you may relegate the task to unit and regression testing suites. The classic “alpha” is one of testing the dynamics that the interaction of these rules create, irrespective of the underlying development method, and the “beta” is honing the dynamics into the desired aesthetics. Bug hunting is continuous, even after release, so that's a dubious indicator of… well… anything, really.

So while they may be more marketing terms at this point, they're still applicable to the development process, detached from the actual methodology, and to suggest that you're in an alpha stage seems rather silly if it's just offering a collection of disconnected game mechanics that are being banged together to see what falls apart — doubly so if the chairman himself has defined the terms in a very classical sense.

 

[Adept]

You just don't understand alpha deflection development!

And no - I don't mean He2+ as Genuine Roberts hasn't invented that yet either.

Repped for the physics joke. Right on Commander.

 

[Marak]

I kind of disagree a little. In big, complex games it's perfectly valid to talk of an alpha test for a partial feature set.

Elite's Alpha 1.0 ... 3.0 are good examples. I don't think FD were misusing the term at all, yet they were clearly far from feature complete for the full game. What was feature complete was the space flight & combat (without FSD or multiple systems).

Yeah... But Fdev's Alpha of Elite was g AWESOME!

Not feature complete - but what they showed worked flawlessly.

And when they added stuff it also worked (except when it didn't - and we had to stare at a spinning Sidewinder for hours) - but they fixed it in a couple of weeks - not months. I can't count the times I've fallen out of a SC ship - (I've fallen out of most of them - It's kinda a hobby).

Somebody somewhere seriously needs to get a grip on this game - and I'm looking at you Chris

*edit - I said Flippin' awesome - honest.

*edit 2 - What I mean is - It's fine to release a few alpha builds to promote your game, but it's a good idea to make sure they're bug free so backers can enjoy them and have a bit of confidence that the game will turn out Ok. And do it on time. When you said you would do it.

*edit 3 - Drunks of Sol would Seriously approve of me tonight